February 13, 2007

Imus On Russert And Plame: "I Think He Knew"

At approximately 7:45 Am (Eastern) Don Imus talked to Frank Rich on his MSNBC Show today and picked up on the Libby trial where he left off yesterday, saying that thinks Tim Russert knew about Valerie Plame (or Wilson's wife) prior to the publication of the Novak column.

Imus's launching pad was that Andrea Mitchell's answers were comically evasive and unconvincing in November 2005 when she recanted her October 2003 statement that it was "widely known" amongst reporters following the Wilson/Niger story that Wilson wife was with the CIA. (More on Mitchell here.) [And more - did you know that Colin Powell was a guest at Andrea's wedding to Alan Greenspan? Dum de dum, why might she want to protect Powell or his good buddy Armitage, help me here... Hey, if she gives up Powell we can call Andrea "The Wedding Singer"].

He added that when he talks to David Gregory about the Plame situation Gregory seems very tense.

Imus could not imagine a motive for Russert to lie, however, and went on to say that in a credibility contest between Russert and Libby, he would choose Russert.

Well - as to Russert's motive, this post has more detail, but the summary is this - Russert started with a little white lie to the FBI in November 2003, with the objective of concealing the fact that he (or Andrea Mitchell) had a source for the Plame leak. Russert did not "lie" to the investigators; he misled them with carefully phrased testimony so as to avoid subpoenas, jail time, and the disclosure of NBC News sources.

And it seemed like a little white lie at the time - Russert knew that Libby had not leaked to him, so he reasoned that his chat with Libby was not the sort of primary leak (government official *to* reporter) that investigators were seeking.

Russert maintained this charade with his deposition to the grand jury in June 2004, then blanched when he finally saw the indictment in October 2005 - the investigation had morphed from a search for leakers into a search for perjury and Russert had become a star witness.

The most trusted man in news did not think he could keep his job if he came forward and admitted that he had misled the Fitzgerald investigation for nearly two years, so he kept quiet and awaited developments.

And one of the developments was that subsequent court filings made it clear that no emails or notes existed at either the White House or at NBC to contradict his story.

So at the trial last week, when faced between (a) admitting that he had misled investigators for three years, probably losing his job and certainly foreclosing any future stories about Big Russ and the Catholic nuns who taught him in school, or (b) continuing the cover-up, Russert took the final plunge and lied.

That, at least, is my guess as to one hypothesis the defense will put forward in order to introduce reasonable doubt as to Russert's veracity. Folks who think Libby lied to keep his low-paying government job and avoid embarrassment will surely be sympathetic to this alternative scenario where Russert had five million reasons a year to lie (Or more! Or less - objection!).

As to whether it is true, how could I possibly know? But the fact that Don Imus thinks something is fishy at NBC News is quite revealing - he does talk to these reporters frequently and prides himself on having a functional BS detector.

BLEG: I wager we will see a transcript of that segment eventually, but sooner is better. Maybe the MSNBC website has an audio (Let me check...). I am not seeing it at the WFAN website in NY, not yet anyway (9:52 Eastern). And the ImusBlog may deliver for us. Here we go:

New York Times columnist Frank Rich called in this morning. He gave us his take on the Libby trial. Starting with agreeing with almost everyone that Russert is telling the truth about his conversation with Scooter Libby.

Mr. Imus thinks Russert is telling the truth about the conversation but is lying about knowing Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. Two minutes later Imus changed his mind and said Russert was not lying. Imus implied throughout the conversation with Rich that Andrea Mitchell and David Gregory were lying.

OK. I would have said that "changed his mind" referred to believing Russert over Libby on their specific conversation, but that is part of the joy of radio - where is a darn transcript?

WHO CARES, BUT: Frank Rich knows little about this trial bit he is a useful barometer for the conventional wisdom of the Bush-bashing left. And he opined that the Plame outing was an accident and an over-reaction, not any sort of a plan to specifically expose her. The Admin wanted to smear Wilson as a house-husband who needed his wife to get him a gig; in Rich's words, "they used a hammer to hit a flea".

maybe the judge needs to be sequestered too. Although I don't think this jury is sequestered. All their liberal friends can call them with "advise". If the judge won't let Andrea testify then the defense needs to recall Gregory and ask him if he ever discussed Plame or Wilson with Russert.

I think the point is also that being allowed to NOT testify in front of the GJ was a "favor" granted him. Such favors are known to influence testimony in many cases. As such, they jury in this case should be made aware that there was a transaction of sort between the Gov and Russert which has not been fully disclosed.

This came up with Ari too, so it's no shocker. In Ari's case the immunity was the tat.

That repeated question by Fitz of the other reporters about how their testimony took place was an attempt to defuse this one. He wants to argue they were all treated alike. Except, they weren't, or he wouldn't be objecting so strenuously.

If Wells shows Russert KNEW he would have no lawyer present at GJ and he stated on the stand that he didn't know that, it certainly raises question as to why he would lie about that. As in... maybe he doesn't want it to appear as if he didn't want to testify before GJ without his lawyer(s). The immediate next and reasonable question is: Why not?

He starts whiffing of 3-day old fish. What is he trying to hide?

If this wasn't a threat to unravel Fitz's case I don't understand why he wouldn't shrug and say, "Sure, go ahead, we have nothing to hide."

Well that's a valid point. But Russert is really the biggest challange to Libby at this point, and he's famous and well liked and considered credible. It seems to me it's a good thing for the jury to realize he has some self-interest rolled up in this.

I have a wonderful idea. Let's put the detainees at Gitmo on trial using the standards the left wants for Libby! We can have TRUTH TO POWER everyday of the week! The prosecutor can lean over and tell one of the terrorist's lawyers..."“Hey! Put that punk on the stand if he’s so innocent. Let me have a shot at him.” And the crowd roared. But not with excitement but with the abuse of their constitutional rights.

I have a wonderful idea. Let's put the detainees at Gitmo on trial using the standards the left wants for Libby! We can have TRUTH TO POWER everyday of the week! The prosecutor can lean over and tell one of the terrorist's lawyers..."“Hey! Put that punk on the stand if he’s so innocent. Let me have a shot at him.” And the crowd roared. But not with excitement but with the abuse of their constitutional rights.

"That repeated question by Fitz of the other reporters about how their testimony took place was an attempt to defuse this one. He wants to argue they were all treated alike. Except, they weren't, or he wouldn't be objecting so strenuously."

Let me put Fitzgerald's problem a slightly different way: The SP persuaded a grand jury to hand down an indictment without ever allowing them to question the single, most important witness in the case.

If this wasn't a threat to unravel Fitz's case I don't understand why he wouldn't shrug and say, "Sure, go ahead, we have nothing to hide."

Then again having Russert on the stand again with Eckenrode waiting in the wings might provide for some interesting dynamics affecting memory of the phone call with Libby. One has to suspect that Libby knows what the outirght lies are at this point.

I suspect in their shoes I'd not find it disturbing he didn't take the stand. I would ask myself why, but I think Wells has that covered.

Well, a problem for Wells has always been, how do you put up a witness and demonstrate his bad memory>

And what happens when the prosecution takes over - mightn't that same bad memory look suspicious? Do we really need to see Libby do his impression of Judy Miller / Robert Grenier / Tim Russert and forget everything not tatooed on to him?

I think he covers this in the close and moves on - I read somewhere that Wells has a history of winning without putting his client up.

Just heard a teaser on MSNBC for tonight's NBC nightly news-Tim Russert talks about taking care
of his elderly father-special report tonight on
NBC--THE REHABILITATION OF RUSSERT HAS BEGUN-Ya
think they're hoping the jury or judge is watching?
Shuster's getting ready to talk@ "strange" goings
on at hearings today? What exactly does Shuster
consider strange,??facts???

How weird that all these guys that only knew her at the farm as Valerie P, that the NYTs was able to get a comment from as soon as the story broke- end up working with the far left.
I mean, it's shocking.

We'd better get crackin' on Wells' closing pretty soon, don't you think? Who'd a thought he'd need it this soon? Maybe we can get some Devil's Advocates in here to moot around the Prosecution's wrap up too. Let the trolls carry their weight for a change!

One thing in this trial about not putting Libby on the stand is that the jury has had the opportunity to hear his words and judge his demeanor (at least vocal demeanor) from the grand jury tapes. They already have an idea of him.
Wells can use that in his closing, by reminding the jurors that his story is out there in his own words for them to evaluate. I don't know if people will think he lied, but he didn't sound belligerent and jurors can compare his behavior and his memory to all the other witnesses.

"I have no problems with the position of those who believe in the war and go fight it. I have problems with those who believe in wars but somehow chicken out (also known as "have other priorities") when it is/was their turn."

So opposing the war means one does not have to fight,good when principles keep a body safe.
This halfwitted blether presumes that all supporters of the war are of military age,medically fit,have enough training to be of use,don't worry Pete,come the draft,you won't get through the psychological tests.

The condensed version of the prosecution closing will be Fitz pointing at Libby and shouting "Witch!!". The tipoff will be if he comes in with a duck under his arm.

I keep thinking that Fitz's most solid witness was Addington. What I took from his testimony was that Libby was very, very cautious about the legality of disclosing anything from the NIE prior to it's "formal" declassification. That and the fact that a skilled attorney was given a copy of the IIPA statute to study.

For instance, I did not realize that during the relevant time period in 2003, Libby was filling 2 different jobs. (1) Chief of Staff to VP; and (2) National Security Advisor. That is a heavy load considering the U.S. had just gone to war.

It's a perfect example for Tom's model, discussed in the post above, about how Russert would come to lie.

He starts out lying, both in Libby and on the stand, in what looks like a negligible matter, the intent is protect the Tim Russert™ brand.

Tom puts is thus in his post:

Well - as to Russert's motive, this post has more detail, but the summary is this - Russert started with a little white lie to the FBI in November 2003, with the objective of concealing the fact that he (or Andrea Mitchell) had a source for the Plame leak. Russert did not "lie" to the investigators; he misled them with carefully phrased testimony so as to avoid subpoenas, jail time, and the disclosure of NBC News sources.

And it seemed like a little white lie at the time - Russert knew that Libby had not leaked to him, so he reasoned that his chat with Libby was not the sort of primary leak (government official *to* reporter) that investigators were seeking.

In the TR™ lie on the stand, he is telling a harmless lie to protect the TR™ brand of a homespun man you can trust telling you the truth everynight, full of homilies and moral sayings.

But this time, someone is pulling him up short on it.

Someone made a point, recently, how on that Imus tape, he must not have been so happy after all, when it came to Fitzmas. But don't forget, the counts had not yet come out then.

I think the shock he expressed about being included in the indictment was genuine.

Hannah's testimony was very skillful. It obviated the need to put Libby onthe stand.
Why did no one talk about it, Sara? Because it is the truth which is boring compared to everything else. (Why do you suppose FDL was its snarkiest during his tesimony?)

" Yeah, pete, as I understand it the latest leftist pitch is anyone for the war is either a chicken hawk (if he's not in the service) or a mercenary (if he is)..Therefore, the only ones with "moral authority" , are those opposed to it,Got it. Somehow, I find that unpersuasive. "

" That is a mischaracterization. I have no problems with the position of those who believe in the war and go fight it. I have problems with those who believe in wars but somehow chicken out (also known as "have other priorities") when it is/was their turn. "

Posted by: Pete | February 13, 2007 at 10:49 AM " I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of those who claim to be for wars or to support a war when they themselves opt out of fighting it. "

Posted by: Pete | February 13, 2007 at 11:16 AM

The overall point to begin with was the hypocracy on the left ( the far left ) . Another words the left will hammer you if you support the war one way or another. I would agree that some are hypocrites but that can be appled to many issues. For instance Darfur. I find it very hypocritical that many on the left want the military to go there but not Iraq. Should I say to them go fight your yourselves ? Thats childish . Also, unlike you most on the left and all of the far left, use this argument against everyone who support the war . I have read blogs where they ask women, old men , cripples , etc. They even wanted the Bush girls to enlist . Here is a reporter questioning that far left genius Tim Robbins.

BERRY: Doesn't it maybe make the situation worse if we leave?

Yes, I think people are acknowledging that it's bad situation. But could it potentially get worse if we pull out of there?

TIM ROBBINS, ACTOR: No, I don't believe it can get worse than it is now. From what I hear from people that have been there, from the Iraq veterans that have come from there, they don't believe it can get worse if we leave.

BERRY: Even if Iran were to take over part of the country?

ROBBINS: Well, I don't know. You seem to have some kind of support for the war. You're pretty young guy. So maybe you should enlist.

Only reference I found to the Powell's attending the Greenspan wedding:

She acknowledges that when Colin Powell returned to the government in 2001 as secretary of state, it would be "a difficult balancing act" covering someone whom she "considered a friend" -- Powell and his wife "had both been guests at our wedding" -- but this marginal awareness of the delicacy of her position doesn't keep her from, say, attending a 1991 dinner given by George H.W. Bush in honor of Margaret Thatcher

"Vincent Cannistraro, Plame's former boss in Counter-terrorism, says she works in WINPAC
Contrary to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s reporting, former CIA official Vincent Cannistraro said that Plame worked undercover for the Center for Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control, or WINPAC. (Wilson xl)

The link doesn't work, but I found part of the 3 sneakies (it was an article that came just before the indictement. 3 intel sneakies were giving a reason why Rove and/or Libby might not be indicted because they had her departmen wrong - odd since the people we know misidentifing her department were Wilson and VIPS)

Information attributed to Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff in New York Times reporter Judith Miller's interview notes is incorrect, offering prosecutors a potential lead to tracking the bad information to its original source.

Miller disclosed this weekend that her notes of a conversation she had with I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby on July 8, 2003 stated Cheney's top aide told her that the wife of Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson worked for the CIA's Weapons Intelligence, Non-Proliferation, and Arms Control (WINPAC) unit.

Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, never worked for WINPAC, an analysis unit in the overt side of the CIA, and instead worked in a position in the CIA's secret side, known as the directorate of operations, according to three people familiar with her work for the spy agency.

I think the shock he expressed about being included in the indictment was genuine.

Further, I suspect that he is not too bright. If he had come out after the indictment (approx Woodward's timing) and said, "Heck, I never told anybody that I was absolutely positive for sure that I didn't say that. I think I knew a few fuzzy rumors about something to do with Wilson's wife being CIA, and I'm not sure where I got them from, or whether or not they were before Novak or not. They only talked to me for like ten minutes, I guess that wasn't enough time to get to any level of subtlety or complexity. I just assumed it was a leak investigation and I knew that nobody leaked to me." Follow up with a reprise of Woodward's defense, "Hey there was an out-of-control prosecutor; Judy got thrown in the slammer for 85 days; sometimes discretion is the better part of valor," and that very well might have gotten Congress to pass a press shield law.

Sure the MSM and the dems are spinning like tops all about evil corrupt republicans, but every single politician of every stripe knows the score here -- the press are scumbags completely without ethics who will have no hesitation to commit perjury and convict someone that they know is innocent, and they'll do it just for kicks.

Russert had the opportunity for the press to be the heros rescuing the innocent man from the out-of-control prosecutor. Instead he just fixed it such that nobody with an IQ larger than a box of rice-a-roni will ever talk to any reporter about anything ever again.

Or they'll tape every call.
You're right, cathy. He could have been a hero--he could have said there was no confidentiality about the call, he was calling to complain and when the FBI called, I thought I was clearing an innocent guy.
Instead--busted.

(it was an article that came just before the indictement. 3 intel sneakies were giving a reason why Rove and/or Libby might not be indicted because they had her departmen[t] wrong - odd since the people we know misidentifing her department were Wilson and VIPS)

OT here but FWIW. Miller said (whatever else her bafflegab was) she was working the forgery story re: her 23 June conversation with Libby hence her "WINPAC" note. If I remember correctly, Larry Johnson was the one shopping pretty hard the "Italians were the forgers" angle, which quickly died.

Larry wrote that prescient July 03 "no terror threat" piece in the NYT and generally hung on to the fringes of the DC-NYC elites. He could have whispered the "WINPAC" bit in Judy's ear over a lunch martini with a copy a the Independent article...speculation at this point.

Can't wait for the transcripts-get Grossman and Greiner with "embarrasing" or "inappropriate" re: the Plame-Wilson matter

My take, Libby came off as reasonable and helpful (IMO, I only read some of the transcipts). How does that prove obstruction-he said he talked to Miller, Cooper, and Russert. And the alledged prejurous statement re: Russert, how is it material if the jury is not even being told of Valerie Plame-Wilson's "classified status", let alone her where worked [they stipulated it was NOT WINPAC-well that narrows it down].

Everyone is missing the most obvious motive for Tim Russert and Andrea Mitchell to lie. On July 6, 2003, the same day as the NYT editorial appears, the guest on MTP is Joe Wilson interviewed by Andrea Mitchell (standing in for TR).
We all know Wilson was 'shopping the story' to anyone who would listen to him. The editorial in the NYT and his appearance on MTP were not a 'coincidence'. The first question a tv news producer asks a potential (and previously unknown) television guest is, "So, Joe Wilson, why are you credible?"
Wilson answers, "Because my wife works for the CIA in nuclear non-proliferation!"
Test passed. Wilson proceeds to debut on MTP.
Russert and Mitchell are protecting their source, Wilson and PLame.
Does any rational person believe Wilson could have gotten on the show if his wife wasn't relevant and added credibility?
Duh!

Also, it is an interesting coincidence that Wilson and Plame appear in a detailed article in 'Vanity Fair' just three months later (typical production leed-time for a magazine). Also, a 'coincidence' that Russert's wife works for 'Vanity Fair'.

This whole silly story was obvious from the start. The NBC clowns were protecting big-mouth Wilson all along, and they still are...

Hey, I just had a thought... Suppose the defense, in their summation, tries to explain why Fitzgerald would make such a silly assumption about how Wilson's wife's job would just have to be so important and so unforgettable to Libby is that Fitzgerald doesn't have a wife.

So Wells or Jeffries says, "Mr Libby's wife was on Joe Biden's staff and worked on the questioning of Clarence Thomas. Mr Cooper's wife is a aide to Senator Clinton whose colleagues interviewed Mr Wilson and Ms Plame in May, 2003. Mr Russert's wife is an editor with Vanity Fair which published the famous article of the Wilson's in the convertible. Ms. Mitchell's husband is the retired Federal Reserve Chairman. Judge Walton's wife is _____. My wife does _____. Washington, DC is full of married people who are both distinguished professionals -- no one thinks anything of it. Now Mr Fitzgerald isn't married. Maybe we can give him some friendly advice: if you ever want to be married, you should lose the notion that a working professional married woman is some sort of outlandish freak.

Oh, well, I know it wouldn't happen, but I secretly suspect that this is a piece of Fitzgerald's utter cluelessness on this matter. One very good reason for Libby to not think Wilson's wife's employment was significant until he heard some good reason that it was significant is that because he himself has a competent professional wife he was simply not shocked that a married women isn't barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. And he also knew that even thinking such a thought would get him in very very very deep trouble with his own wife!

P.S. - Novak's column which started all of this wasn't published until eight days later, on July 14, 2003.
Plenty of time for Wilson, Russert, Mitchell, and the NBC producers to blab all over Washington that Wilson's wife worked at CIA in a relevant department.

The reality here is simple. It's now clear that Plame's ID was not leaked to "out" her - it was leaked to smear Wilson, who pissed off the White House by telling the truth about the Niger yellowcake story and then compounded things by claiming - inaccurately - that Cheney was the one who sent him on his trip in the first place.

When the White House operation realized that in their zeal to discredit Wilson, they had been careless with the identity of a NOC, they went into coverup mode. Not because there was any crime to conceal, but because the accidental leaking of the identity of a NOC is a huge political embarrassment for an administration priding itself on being more patriotic than thou.

With this as context, Libby made the decision to pin his knowledge of Plame's ID on the media for two reasons: (1) Because he wanted to conceal the central role of the VP in all of this, and (2) because he assumed - not without reason - that his friends in the media would stonewall to "protect their sources" and the truth would never come out. (Remember - before this investigation this was a safe assumption.)

And by the way - this strategy worked. Nothing came out before the election and Bush continues to sit in the White House and ignore his pledge to fire anyone who leaked the Plame ID - after all, can you fire the VP?. Libby's trial is an embarrassment, but much less so than having this information come out in 2004. So chalk this one up as collateral damage to an otherwise successful political operation.

Any other reading of events is simply ridiculous. From a legal perspective, any attempt to argue that not calling Cheney or Libby to testify is somehow a good thing for the defense is self-delusional idiocy. He is guilty and he is going down.

Rule Against Perpituities? Said 'rule' applies to the voidability of real property conveyances. As much as I appretiate Kaus linking to you Mr. Maguire, judging from the content of these comments it has become pretty clear that this comment section is not a serious forum to discuss this case or anything else for that matter.
Keep up the good work Tom but tell your readers to get a clue or just shut up. Further, isn't it quite possible that Libby was simply lying and he named Russert because he didn't believe Fitz would ever put the highly respected newsman on the stand?

Lets see Josh is in a Federal holding cell because he will not identify the people on his tape. Yet the SPINELESS GUTLESS cheney isn't forced to testify because why? OH yes! like his party there is no one to blame and this piece of HUMAN FECAL matter wouldn't be able to tell the truth without the twists to have palusible deniability. Repukulans the SCUM of America the New Racist Nazis Fascist party. War for profits.

GMAN,
I think that is a good analysis. I'm not as convinced as you that they didn't know about Plame's NOC status. Otherwise, why wouldn't they have just stated publicly why they thought Wilson wasn't credible, instead of leaking it to their journalist friends?
I'm also not as convinced that Libby is going down. All they need is one wingnut juror who buys into the "Libby was busy protecting us from the Al Qaeda terrorists and forgot about Plame" defense and he gets hung jury and no way will they have a do-over on this one. And there is always one wingnut in the crowd.

I am retired now but when I worked for the government defence programs "Top Secret" it was againest the law to tell any one. If I did I could have been prosecuted. How does the governmemt top official get away with this? Thanks. Mort.

Let's try this (a) there is no evidence this was "secret";(b) there is no evidence that Armitage or Libby or Rove knew it was in the critical time, and (b) only Fleischer was known to have had his hands on the INR which was stamped "secret" though apparently not because of the Plame info in it, which Armitage (no stranger to classified info) says was unheard of if she truly was undercover.

I'm being a little presumptive to assume that Libby, Rove, etc didn't know they were outing a NOC, but I think that the evidence shows that they only went into coverup mode when this fact became clear.

The reason they didn't just say why they thought Wilson wasn't credible is part of the whole Washington two-step. What I mean is that this type of criticism coming from the Bush Administration would have been much less effective than the same facts coming from "objective" journalists. It also wouldn't have allowed the President to stay above the fray.

You are absolutely correct that it only takes one juror to hang things up, but based on the evidence they have in front of them, I can't see it happening. We'll know soon, I guess.

"What matters is the president said he would get to the bottom of this and fire anybody involved with outing a CIA agent. I'm waiting for the president to keep his word."

He kept his word. Problem was that he was stabbed in the back by Powell. The White house ordered that if anyone knew, they should come forward. Powell knew, and he kept quiet.

"Consider that Armitage felt it was fine for Libby to undergo undeserved torment during Fitzgerald's inquisition and that Colin Powell also knew that Armitage was the leaker but kept quiet about his knowledge when interviewed by the Justice two days after Amitage admitted to Powell he was the leaker."

"It was an act of supreme disloyalty for Armitage to keep the fact that he was Novak's source from the president -- and thus the public -- for three years. The same goes for Powell. There was no reason whatever -- other than the desire to do political damage to the administration -- for Armitage and Powell to remain silent while the 527 Media and the Dems fired a three-year long barrage of political fire at the President, the Vice President, Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. We expect the Dems and the political-activist media to do this. But we don't expect the craven, cowardly conduct of Armitage and Powell."

"And by the way - this strategy worked. Nothing came out before the election and Bush continues to sit in the White House and ignore his pledge to fire anyone who leaked the Plame ID - after all, can you fire the VP?."

So what proof hjave you got that the VP leaked the Plame ID (something which Libby was not convicted of)